R v Te Maari

In the Court of Appeal of New Zealand, the case of R v Te Maari involved Alan Joseph Te Maari, who was convicted of one count of sexual violation by rape and another of digitally penetrating a young relative of his. Te Maari was acquitted on three other counts: sexually violating the complainant by rape on an earlier occasion, indecently assaulting her, and inducing an indecent act. He was sentenced to five and a half years imprisonment for the rape and concurrently to 18 months imprisonment for the lesser violation. The appeal against his conviction and sentence was dismissed by the Court of Appeal. The legal issues in this case revolved around whether the trial judge should have given a Papadopoulos direction to the jury when they first reported being unable to agree on a verdict after almost four hours of deliberation. Te Maari contended that the judge should have discharged the jury at that point or shortly after, arguing that the judge's failure to do so pressured the jury into reaching an unsafe verdict. The Court of Appeal found no error in the judge's handling of the jury's deliberations and held that the verdict was safe. The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction and sentence were upheld.